Death with Dignity

Those who argue in favor of euthanasia will characteristically want to relieve suffering. Perhaps too, where the patient appears to be in a persistent vegetative state, there will be a wish to see medical resources being put to a better use. But there is thought to be a third advantage: people, it is said, should be able to die with Euthanasia, it would be suggested, is not merely a matter of mercy killing, or resource saving. It is sometimes a matter of respect. No doubt people will say the same thing about its twin, assisted suicide. This note, however, is not for the most part about these controversial practices. For even someone who is opposed to these practices might wish that people could die with dignity, and hope to die with himself. It is this particular notion I wish to discuss. It is important to consider such a question as much as possible on its own, without becoming too entangled in wider and more complicated controversies. What then would be meant by this wish that someone should die with What would be its content? It is not quite obvious what is at issue. The phrase with dignity might just have found its way into circulation without having much sense behind it. And why, one wonders, is it used so selectively? I have never, for example, heard anyone suggest that in abortion a fetus should, in some way, be made to die with The very thought is curiously uncomfortable. Not everything we can do can be done with (or without) Would we understand what is meant by birth with dignity? Could one ask which was the more dignified: a cesarean or a normal delivery? And would it matter? A child surely cannot be said to grow with And it is not at all clear what breathing with would mean. Perhaps breathing one's last with is similarly empty? It is sometimes suggested that we might take a subjective approach to this question, saying that if some one merely thinks that a certain way of dying is undignified then it would be undignified for this individual to die in this way. It is easy to see why this idea is popular, for it seems to by-pass our problems with definition, and it has an attractive air of autonomy about it. But it is plainly no solution to our current worries. For if no one understands the phrase without dignity we likewise do not understand the sentence Smith thinks that this is a death without dignity. And if we did understand without dignity we should not in any case be saying that a dying person who merely thinks he is dying without must thereby be dying in such a manner. Dignity is related to insult. Being insulted is something quite objective: a sensitive person can think he is being insulted when this is quite untrue. This latter point is in fact quite important, for in the current climate more and more people will come to have these thoughts or quasi thoughts and perhaps need to be helped to think better. So the appeal to what people think has not helped us. We are left with the problem of understanding. Surely, death is simply something that happens to one, and can hardly be thought to have or to lack There is an exception here: where death is deliberately brought about. Certain ways of execution have been thought more dignified than others. If in Tudor times one was a somebody--a real person--one would have been decapitated rather than hanged. Military men have preferred to be shot. And one can kill in an insulting manner, jeering at the victim; if that is not enough one may then treat the corpse with contempt. Mussolini's body was suspended upside-down. Association is important in all this. People, for example, associate mercy killing with the putting down of animals by the local vet, and might think it an insult for a patient to be treated in this way--it would be thought an undignified death. One can of course die in rather undignified circumstances. …